Milanka Chaudhury

Milanka Chaudhury is a Partner in the Disputes practice at Trilegal.

He is a renowned name in the legal industry with more than two decades of diverse experience in Litigation and Arbitration and has handled multiple headline-making disputes over the course of his career.

Considered one of India’s foremost lawyers on issues concerning aviation and airports, particularly disputes in the regulatory sphere, he routinely represents airport operators, airlines and concessionaires before the AERA Appellate Tribunal and the Supreme Court. He also has wide experience in handling regulatory authorities such as AERA and DGCA in the aviation sphere.

Milanka has also handled arbitrations conducted under multiple rules and laws, before major global institutions and fora, and advises clients on conservancy and provisional measures during proceedings.

Over the years, he has gained experience in handling arbitrations conducted under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce, Indian Council of Arbitration, Zurich Chambers of Commerce, Singapore International Arbitration Centre, London Court of International Arbitration and other similar associations and institutions.

• Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) - Successfully represented Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) before the High Court of Delhi in proceedings filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by Airports Authority of India (AAI) against an Arbitral Award passed in a dispute between DIAL and AAI arising out of the Operation Management and Development Agreement (OMDA). The High Court observed that it is principally concerned with the interpretation of the contract (i.e., OMDA) and whether the view ultimately expressed in the Award (passed by the majority of the Tribunal) satisfies the tests of Section 34 of Arbitration Act. The High Court ultimately upheld the Award’s interpretation of OMDA as it was a broader and a cumulative consideration of the legislative objective underlying the introduction of Section 12-A in the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 and proceeded on the basis of a conjoint reading of the Project Agreements, commercial pragmatism and the rule of business efficacy. It held that the Award neither suffered from implausibility nor could be said to suffer from the vice of unpardonable perversity as propounded by courts. On the other hand, the Minority Opinion was based on an extremely narrow and constricted construction of the OMDA as it failed to consider the interplay and reciprocity of the parties’ intention while alluding to the Project Agreements, which formed a compendious bargain. The High Court further held that the Independent Auditor appointed unanimously by the Tribunal (i) is recognised under the OMDA and has been regularly reconciling accounts and certifying Revenue for the purposes of computation of Annual Fee; and (ii) has not been entrusted with any essential decision-making power and has to merely quantify the Annual Fee based on Arbitral Award’s findings and the material existing on the record.
• GMR Airports Limited - Trilegal successfully represented GMR Airports Limited and its SPV, GMR Nagpur International Airport Limited (collectively referred to as ‘GMR’) before the Supreme Court in Curative Petitions filed by Union of India (‘UoI’) and Airports Authority of India (‘AAI’). These petitions challenged the earlier decision of the Supreme Court dismissing Special Leave Petitions (‘SLPs’) filed by them challenging the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, had directed the parties to execute the Concession Agreement in favour of GMR for the upgradation, modernisation, operation and management of the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport, Nagpur (‘Nagpur Airport’). In their respective Curative Petitions, UoI and AAI claimed a violation of principles of natural justice since they were not parties before the High Court and as such, were aggrieved by the Supreme Court’s findings which upheld the High Court’s observation that UoI and AAI were not necessary or proper parties before it. UoI and AAI primarily complained of being adversely affected by the ruling that prior approval of the Central Government under Section 12A of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 as not required for the transfer of land to GMR for the development of the Nagpur Airport since it was only a license being awarded and not a lease. Although the Supreme Court issued notice to GMR, however, eventually dismissed the Curative Petitions based on the compelling arguments of GMR that the Curative Petitions failed to meet the tests laid down by Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388, as both UoI and AAI were extensively heard by the Supreme Court in their SLPs on merit. Post the dismissal, the Concession Agreement has been finally executed on 8 October 2024.
• Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) - Representing DIAL before the Supreme Court in a challenge to the judgment of TDSAT holding that the services of Cargo and Ground Handling and the revenue therefrom is non-aeronautical revenue and as such, DIAL is entitled to determine the charges for such services. DIAL had challenged the AERA’s decision to determine charges for Cargo and Ground Handling Services provided by DIAL’s sub-concessionaires at IGIA, Delhi. It was DIAL’s case that in view of its concession agreement and the AERA Act, these services are non-aeronautical in nature and hence beyond the regulatory purview of AERA which is statutorily empowered only to determine charges for aeronautical services. Agreeing with DIAL, TDSAT held that CGH Services are non-aeronautical services and consequently, the revenue therefrom is non-aeronautical revenue. As such, the determination of the charges for these services is beyond AERA's purview. While deciding so, TDSAT observed that the DIAL’s concession agreement with the Airports Authority of India expressly classifies these services as non-aeronautical services and the AERA Act mandates AERA to respect such concessions. It was further held that since the sub-concessionaire’s right to provide these services flows to them through DIAL’s concession agreement, these services will be treated as non-aeronautical services even when being provided by such sub-concessionaires. AERA has challenged the judgment of TDSAT before the Supreme Court which is currently pending adjudication.

• Arbitration
• Commercial
• Commercial and transactions
• Commercial disputes
• Trade and customs
• Airport Regulatory

• Aviation
• Transport

• LL.B. University of Delhi (2000x)

• International Bar of Association (2023)

• Bar Council of Delhi (2000)